GLOBAL OVERVIEW 2020 THE DEATH PENALTY FOR DRUG OFFENCES: Harm ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
THE DEATH PENALTY FOR DRUG OFFENCES: GLOBAL OVERVIEW 2020
The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Harm Reduction International (HRI) is a leading
Global Overview 2020
non-governmental organisation dedicated to
Ajeng Larasati and Giada Girelli reducing the negative health, social and legal
© Harm Reduction International, 2021
ISBN 978-1-8380910-6-4 impacts of drug use and drug policy. We promote
the rights of people who use drugs and their
Designed by ESCOLA
Published by communities through research and advocacy to
Harm Reduction International help achieve a world where drug policies and laws
61 Mansell Street, Aldgate contribute to healthier, safer societies.
London E1 8AN
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7324 3535
E-mail: office@hri.global The organisation is an NGO with Special
Website: www.hri.global Consultative Status with the Economic and Social
Council of the United Nations.Acknowledgements
This report would not be possible without data made available or shared
by human rights organisations and individual experts, many of which provided
advice and assistance throughout the drafting process. We would specifically
like to thank the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran,
the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN), the Bahrain Institute for Rights
and Democracy (BIRD), the European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights
(ESOHR), Hands Off Cain, the Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR),
Justice Project Pakistan, LBH Masyarakat, Odhikar, Project 39A (National Law
University, Delhi), Reprieve and The Rights Practice. We are also indebted to
Iyad Alqaisi, Fahri Azzat, Ricky Gunawan, Pulasthi Hewamanna, Carolyn Hoyle,
Richard Lines, M. Ravi and Tripti Tandon.
Thanks are also owed to colleagues at Harm Reduction International
for their feedback and support in preparing this report: Gen Sander, Cinzia
Brentari, Naomi Burke-Shyne, Catherine Cook, Robert Csák, Colleen
Daniels, Lucy O’Hare, Maddie O’Hare, Suchitra Rajagopalan, Emily Rowe,
Sam Shirley-Beavan, Olga Szubert and Anne Taiwo. And to Temitope Salami,
the dedicated volunteer at Harm Reduction International.
Any errors are the sole responsibility of Harm Reduction International.
4Introduction
Harm Reduction International (HRI) has monitored the use of the
death penalty for drug offences worldwide since our first ground-breaking
publication on this issue in 2007. This report, our tenth on the subject,
continues our work of providing regular updates on legislative, policy and
practical developments related to the use of capital punishment for drug
offences, a practice which is a clear violation of international law.
The Global Overview 2020 provides an analysis of key developments
related to the death penalty for drug offences in 2020, their potential me-
dium-term and long-term consequences, and the influence of COVID-19
on these changes. It will also examine the impact of measures introduced
in response to COVID-19 on the right to a fair trial. A special section at the
end of the report provides a review of best practices identified by lawyers
for advocating against the death penalty at the national level.
Harm Reduction International opposes the death penalty in all
cases without exception, regardless of the person accused and their
guilt, the nature of the crime and the method of execution.
5Methodology
Drug offences (also referred to as drug-related offences or drug-rela-
ted crimes) are drug-related activities categorised as crimes under national
laws. For the purposes of this report, this definition excludes activities
which are not related to the trafficking, manufacturing, possession or use of
controlled substances and related inchoate offences (inciting, assisting or
abetting a crime).
In the 35 states that retain the death penalty for drug offences, capital
punishment is typically applied for the following offences: cultivation and
manufacturing, and the smuggling, trafficking or importing/exporting of con-
trolled substances. However, in some of these states, the following drug
offences may also be punishable by the death penalty (among others): drug
possession, storing and hiding drugs, financing drug offences, inducing or
coercing others into using drugs. For more information on the drug offences
punishable by death by jurisdiction, see HRI’s legislation table at www.hri.
global/death-penalty-2020.
HRI’s research on the death penalty for drug offences excludes countries
where drug offences are punishable with death only if they involve, or result
in, intentional killing. For example, in Saint Lucia (not included in this report),
the only drug-related offence punishable by death is murder committed in
connection with drug trafficking or other drug offences.1
The death penalty is reported as ‘mandatory’ when it is the only pu-
nishment that can be imposed following a conviction for at least certain
categories of drug offences (without regard to the particular circumstances
of the offence or the offender). Mandatory sentences hamper judicial senten-
cing discretion, and thus, according to international human rights standards,
are inherently arbitrary.2
1 Art. 86(1)(d)(vi), Criminal Code of Saint Lucia (Act 9 of 2004 in force from 1 January 2005).
6
2 UN Human Rights Committee (3 Sept 2019) General Comment 36 on the Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36, para 37;
UN Commission on Human Rights, Civil and Political Rights (22 Dec 2004) Including the Questions of Disappearances
and Summary Executions: Report of the Special Rapporteur, Philip Alston, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2007/5, para. 63-4 and 80.The numbers that have been included in this report are drawn from
and cross-checked against official government reports (where available) and
state-run news agencies, court judgments, non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) reports and databases, United Nations (UN) documents, media reports,
scholarly articles, and communications with local activists and human rights
advocates, organisations and groups. Every effort has been taken to minimise
inaccuracies, but there is always the potential for error. HRI welcomes informa-
tion or additional data not included in this report.
Identifying current drug laws and controlled drugs schedules in some
countries can be challenging, due to limited reporting and recording at the
national level, together with language barriers. Some governments make their
laws available on official websites; others do not. Where it was not possible
for HRI to independently verify a specific law, the report relies on credible
secondary sources.
With respect to data on death row population, death sentences and
executions, the margin for error is even greater. In many countries, informa-
tion about the use of the death penalty is shrouded in secrecy, or opaque at
best. For this reason, many of the figures cited in this report cannot be con-
sidered comprehensive, and instead should be read as minimum numbers
of confirmed sentences, executions and death row populations, illustrative
of how capital punishment is carried out for drug offences. Real numbers are
higher, in some cases significantly. Where information is incomplete, attempts
were made to identify additional sources. In some cases, information differs
across sources due to this lack of transparency. In these cases, HRI has made
a judgment based on available evidence.
When the symbol ‘+’ is found next to a number, it means that the reported
figure refers to the minimum confirmed number, but according to credible
reports the actual figure is likely to be higher. Global and yearly figures are cal-
culated by using the minimum confirmed figures.
7Contents
Foreword 10
Executive summary 13
2020 in a snapshot 15
The Death Penalty for Drug The death penalty for 16
Offences in the COVID-19 drug offences in 2020:
Pandemic Era A watershed moment
The impact of COVID-19 22
on the right to fair trial
Conclusion 30
The Death Penalty for Drug Categories 32
Offences: Global Overview
2020 Country-by-country 34
analysis
8High Low Symbolic Insufficient
Application Application Application Data
China 35 Bahrain 50 Cuba 61 Libya 67
Indonesia 37 Bangladesh 51 Jordan 61 North Korea 67
Iran 39 Brunei Mauritania 65 Syria 67
Malaysia 41 Darussalam 51
Myanmar 62 Yemen 67
Saudi Arabia 44 Egypt 52
Oman 65
Singapore 46 India 53
Qatar 62
Vietnam 48 Iraq 53
South Korea 63
Kuwait 54
South Sudan 65
Lao PDR 54
Sudan 65
Pakistan 55
Taiwan 63
Sri Lanka 56
United States
State of of America 64
Palestine 58
Thailand 58
United Arab
Emirates 59
Special section: 68
Voices from the courtroom:
lawyers’strategies to reduce the
imposition of the death penalty
9Foreword
2020 was unquestionably a historic year, during which the world was
shut down by a pandemic. It was also an unprecedented year for the use of the
death penalty for drug offences. Globally, we saw the lowest number of con-
firmed executions for drug offences in more than a decade, and significant
decreases in overall executions, even in staunchly retentionist countries. My
own country, Singapore, did not carry out any executions this past year for the
first time since 2013.
COVID-19 has undeniably played a role in this ‘execution respite’. The sig-
nificant disruptions to court processes and judicial proceedings, coupled with a
shift in governmental priorities during the pandemic and political developments
in some countries may have played some roles. Strategic legal challenges and
creative advocacy by lawyers have also contributed to this result.
The pandemic however has not stopped governments and courts from
imposing death sentences. This is despite the fact the court proceedings came
to a total halt in many countries. In Singapore, two cases emerged where the
death sentence was passed not in a physical hearing but via Zoom. I found that
deplorable, and in fact, I am representing one of them. Hence despite COVID-
19, the number of people confirmed to have been sentenced to death for drug
offences in 2020 was higher than in 2019. This contributes to the growing po-
pulation of people on death row, many of whom are detained in overcrowded
prisons with a severe lack of access to health, welfare, and even proper legal
services.
As a human rights lawyer, I am cautious of using the reduction in execu-
tions alone as a measure of success. True progress must also prevent more
death sentences from being imposed in the first place. One way of doing this
is through building public support on issues around the death penalty and drug
policy. We must remind governments and citizens that miscarriages of justi-
ces do occur, and executions are irreversible. But perhaps the most compelling
of all is the argument that there still exists no data whatsoever that the death
penalty deters drug use, misuse, sale or trafficking. The narrative produced by
the governments, including Singapore, that the amount of drugs in the country
is low and that the public is “safer” with the death penalty is fundamentally
flawed as various studies have shown.
10In Singapore, when people on death row faced an imminent threat of
execution, we worked hard to stop the planned executions, especially when
there was a miscarriage of justice or when fundamental human rights were
violated. In a landmark drug trafficking case involving a Malaysian national, I
managed to persuade the Court of Appeal to set aside its own previous deci-
sion on wilful blindness which the court finally declared its own decision to be
demonstrably wrong. This is the first death penalty case on the miscarriage of
justice to succeed in Singapore after a clemency petition was turned down by
the President and when all avenues were closed. This has now led to a review
of other cases which turned on the issue of wilful blindness.
A key takeaway from 2020’s death penalty cases, in my view, has been
the conversation in court decisions about the prosecution’s duty to disclose
evidence to the defence. This ‘conversation’ has far-reaching implications for
all other pending death penalty cases in Singapore.
Despite the challenges we faced last year, the pandemic has given us
a once-in-a-generation opportunity to re-assess our advocacy to abolish
the death penalty for drug offences. Last year, we adapted to challenging
circumstances; we continued representing our clients on death row or at risk
of being sentenced to death; we engaged with the public in new and creative
ways to support our advocacy. In many instances, cases were taken on either
on a pro bono basis or on a “low bono” basis. We took the support of external
organisations and universities and were reassured by supportive statements
and declarations by UN agencies. We joined the voices of the international
anti-death penalty movement and civil society organisations in calling for the
abolition of the death penalty in Singapore. These are just some of the tools we
used to further advocate for the abolition of the death penalty and drug policy
reforms. We must continue to refine them and use them fearlessly. Our battles
and campaigns must carry on as there is still much work to be done to abolish
this heinous state-sanctioned practice worldwide.
M. Ravi
International Human Rights Lawyer,
Singapore-based Advocate & Solicitor
11Country
by country
1
17 30 12 13 3
15
28
26
24
21
27 14
11 8
20 25
7
22
30 10
9 18
4
16 6
High Application Low Application Symbolic Application Insufficient Data
1. China 8. Bahrain 20. Cuba 27. Libya
2. Indonesia 9. Bangladesh 21. Jordan 28. North Korea
3. Iran 10. Brunei Darussalam 22. Myanmar 29. Syria
4. Malaysia 11. Egypt 23. Qatar 20. Yemen
5. Saudi Arabia 12. Iraq 24. South Korea
6. Singapore 13. Kuwait 25. Taiwan
7. Vietnam 14. Lao PDR 26. United States
15. Pakistan of America
16. Sri Lanka
17. State of Palestine
18. Thailand
19. United Arab Emirates
12Executive Summary
2020 was an unprecedented year for the death penalty for drug offences,
with a record low number of confirmed executions and some of the most
resolute executioners either refraining from implementing death sentences
or declaring a moratorium. As such, and in light of the exceptional challenges
that governments may face in the near future – ranging from strained heal-
thcare systems to economic and employment crises following the COVID-19
pandemic – there may be a unique opportunity to make progress towards the
abolition of the death penalty for drug offences.
Thirty executions for drug offences were confirmed in 2020 – a 75%
decrease from 2019. The picture remains incomplete, due to paucity of in-
formation on executions in China and Vietnam; nevertheless, the reduction
is significant. It is too early to definitively conclude if this is the beginning of
a long-term trend, or the outcome of an exceptional year. What is clear is that
COVID-19 was not the only cause for this drop in executions, and that political
developments played an important role.
Although this historically low figure is certainly welcome, a decrease
in the number of executions is not in itself a solution to the problem, neither
should it be treated as a primary goal in advocating against the death penalty
for drug offences. Executions are only the tip of the iceberg. By nature, exe-
cutions are the most visible part of a much more broadly problematic system,
characterised by a plethora of fair trial violations, inhumane treatment and
grossly disproportionate and punitive approaches to drugs that are respon-
sible for numerous convictions and death sentences, regardless of whether
executions are carried out. This is clearly visible when looking at countries such
as Thailand, Lao PDR or Sri Lanka, where individuals have not been recently
executed for drug offences, yet death sentences continue to be pronounced,
resulting in hundreds of people on death row. Regrettably, such countries tend
to attract little scrutiny.
13That many countries remain reluctant to move away from capital pu-
nishment is demonstrated by the fact that death sentences continued to be
imposed amid a global pandemic, insomuch that a 16.3% increase in known
drug-related death sentences has been recorded. This is despite the challenges
that COVID-19 presented for courts and governments, which further exposed
defendants to the risk of fair trial violations. Worryingly, some countries are ad-
vocating for harsher policy and punishment. One example is the Philippines,
where, at the time of writing, a bill was adopted by the House of Representati-
ves (the lower house of the Congress) reintroducing the death penalty for drug
offences.
Noteworthy developments witnessed in 2020 – from Saudi Arabia to the
United States – are a reminder that the death penalty is inherently political;
it can be abandoned with the stroke of a pen, and with no significant impact
on crime, drug use and drug trafficking. For this very reason, it is vital that
advocacy against the death penalty, together with drug policy reform, remains
on the agenda of both human rights and drug reform advocates. Alignment
between these two worlds – too often working in parallel – is essential to avoid
replacing the death penalty with equally disproportionate and inhuman punish-
ments, or missing important opportunities for progress. Without abolition of the
death penalty and drug policy reform, hundreds of people will continue to face
disproportionate sentences and risk spending years, if not decades, on death
row - an invisible population living in limbo, forgotten and mistreated.
14The death penalty 2020
for drug offences
2019
2018
2017
in 2020: a snapshot
2016
2015
2014
2013
• 35 countries retain the death penalty 2012
for a range of drug offences worldwide. 2011
In 2020, only three countries (China,
2010
Iran, and Saudi Arabia) were confirmed
to have carried out executions for drug
offences. It is likely that drug-related Executions in past 10 years
executions took place in Vietnam, but
state secrecy prevents confirmation (Excluding China)
of this.
• At least 30 people were confirmed to
have been executed for drug offences
in 2020 - a 75% drop from 2019 and
a 96% drop from 2015. This is by far
the lowest recorded number since HRI
288
526
369
529
399
706
755
327
116
started reporting on this issue in 2007.
30
93
• Saudi Arabia executed five people
for drugs (compared with 84 in 2019).
In early 2020, a moratorium on drug-
related executions was imposed,
which significantly impacted on the
global decline in executions in 2020.
• No one was executed in Singapore,
for the first time since 2013.
• At least 10 countries sentenced a
minimum of 213 people to death for
drug offences in 2020 – more than in
2019.3 This increase was particularly
significant in some countries, such as
Indonesia, where at least 77 drug-
related death sentences were imposed
in 2020 (a 79% increase from 2019).
• At least 3,000 people are on death
row for drug offences worldwide.
High numbers of death sentences
contribute to the growing number of
people on death row.
16 15The death penalty for
drug offences in the
COVID-19 pandemic era
COVID-19 has impacted all aspects of human life. Since the World Health
Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 as a public health emergency of in-
ternational concern in January 2020,4 governments have introduced policies
to restrict movement within and from/to their territories to reduce the risk of
transmission.5 Partial or full ‘lockdown’ policies were put in place, with people
asked to practice physical distancing, schools and shops closed and public
gatherings banned. Courts and judicial processes, including those imposing or
implementing death sentences, also faced disruptions, and were either paused
or had to adapt their operations.
This section will start with an overview of key developments related
to the death penalty for drug offences in 2020, including confirmed death
sentences and executions, policy changes, their significance, and the influence
of COVID-19 on such changes. An analysis will follow of the impact of COVID-19
on the right to a fair trial in capital drug cases.
To better understand the current situation and the immediate impact
of COVID-19 on the application of the death penalty for drug offences, Harm
Reduction International (HRI) reached out to lawyers and practitioners in China,
India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and Singapore.
4 World Health Organization, “Listings of WHO’s Response to COVID-19,” accessed Feb 15, 2021, https://www.who.int/
news/item/29-06-2020-covidtimeline.
16
5 See detailed timeline of COVID-19 at: Caroline Kantis, Samantha Kiernan, and Jason Socrates Bardis, “UPDATED:
Timeline of the Coronavirus,” Think Global Health, Jan 15, 2021, https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/updated-
timeline-coronavirus.01. THE DEATH
PENALTY FOR DRUG
OFFENCES IN 2020: A
WATERSHED MOMENT
Although the number of countries retaining the death penalty for drugs
did not change in 2020, the implementation of this measure has changed signi-
ficantly, insomuch as – if capitalised upon – 2020 could represent a watershed
moment for the death penalty for drugs.
Most significantly, the number of minimum confirmed executions has
dropped to 30. For comparison, at least 116 people were executed for drug
offences in 2019. This is only a partial figure, due to a widespread lack of trans-
parency on executions and the complete unavailability of figures on China and
Vietnam; nevertheless, this is, by far, the lowest recorded number since HRI
started reporting on this issue in 2007. This downward trend was driven mainly
by developments in Saudi Arabia, where a moratorium on the death penalty
for drug offences is in place as part of Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman’s
criminal justice reforms. As an attempt to improve the country’s abysmal
human rights reputation on the international stage, the Crown Prince imposed
a moratorium on drug-related executions6 while abolition is discussed with the
Shura Council (an advisory body to the Saudi King with no legislative authority).7
Equally significant was a slight decrease in confirmed executions in
Iran following legislative amendments to the Law for Combating Illicit Drugs
in 2017, and the absence of executions in Singapore for the first time since
2013. The latter development might be the result of both COVID-19-related
policies and civil society activism to stop planned executions.
6 “Saudi Arabia Drastically Decreases Application of Death Penalty in 2020,” Saudi Gazette, Jan 18, 2021, https://
saudigazette.com.sa/article/602621/SAUDI-ARABIA/Saudi-Arabia-drastically-decreases-application-of-death-
penalty-in-2020.
17
7 “Annual Report 2020 - Saudi Arabia: Pandemic of Repression Without a Cure” (European Saudi Organisation for Human
Rights (ESOHR), Jan 14, 2021), https://www.esohr.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Saudi-Arabia-Pandemic-of-
Repression-without-a-Cure.pdfWhile interruptions to the operation of judicial systems and shifts in prio-
rities due to COVID-19 have undoubtedly played a role, the fact that two of the
strongest supporters of capital punishment as a tool of drug control – Singa-
pore and Saudi Arabia – have limited executions is an encouraging sign that
capital punishment is not an essential feature of any justice system. As no-
ted above, particularly in Saudi Arabia the drastic reduction in executions for
drug-related offences is to be attributed not to COVID-19, but rather to purely
political developments.
More broadly, developments at the international level may have added
to the pressure to restrict the use of capital drug laws. In December 2020, the
United Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted its eighth resolution calling
for a moratorium of the death penalty, with record-breaking support from 123
countries (compared with 120 in 2018) and only 38 votes against.8 At the UN
Commission on Narcotic Drugs, 13 countries declared their opposition to the
death penalty for drug offences, joined by the International Narcotics Control
Board.9 On the 2020 World Day Against the Death Penalty, Pope Francis reite-
rated that the death penalty is against Christian catechism and referred to the
death penalty as “the worst sin a human being can commit”.10
8 “Report of the Third Committee - Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: Human Rights Questions, Including
Alternative Approaches for Improving the Effective Enjoyment of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” (General
Assembly, Dec 1, 2020), https://www.undocs.org/en/A/75/478/Add.2.
9 Monitoring of statements at the opening and the general debate of the 63rd session of the Commission on Narcotic
18
Drugs, https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/commissions/CND/session/63_Session_2020/63-statements.html.
10 “Holy See: ‘Death Penalty the Most Shocking Thing in the World’,” Vatican News, Oct 10, 2020, https://www.
vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2020-10/world-day-against-death-penalty-holy-see-un-jurkovic.html.Sixth, seventh, and eighth UNGA 2016 2018 2020
resolution calling for a moratorium
of the death penalty: voting Bahrain abs - -
record of countries that retain the Bangladesh - - -
death penalty for drug offences
(+ = in favour; - = against; abs = Brunei Darussalam - - -
abstention) China - - -
Cuba abs abs abs
Egypt - - -
India - - -
Indonesia abs abs abs
Iran - - -
Iraq - - -
Jordan abs abs +
Kuwait - - -
Lao PDR abs abs abs
Libya - + -
Malaysia - + +
Myanmar abs abs abs
North Korea - - -
Oman - - -
Pakistan - + -
Qatar - - -
Saudi Arabia - - -
Singapore - - -
South Korea abs abs +
South Sudan + abs abs
Sri Lanka + + +
State of Palestine n/a n/a n/a
Sudan - - -
Syria - - -
Taiwan n/a n/a n/a
Thailand abs abs abs
United Arab Emirates abs abs abs
USA - - -
Vietnam abs abs abs
Yemen - - abs
192020 also saw significant civil society activism against the death pe-
nalty. With restrictions to in-person gatherings, efforts were concentrated
online. One example is a petition launched by LBH Masyarakat on the case
of Merri Utami, an Indonesian migrant worker who has spent over a decade
on death row for being tricked into trafficking drugs. The petition, which asks
Indonesian President Joko Widodo to grant Merri clemency, has garnered over
19,000 signatures at the time of writing.11 Notably, advocates repeatedly iden-
tified online public engagement as one key strategy for advocating against the
death penalty, as explored in the special section at the end of the report.
The significant reduction in drug-related executions is undoubtedly a
positive development - an opportunity for countries to rethink the necessity
and effectiveness of this policy, and for advocates to further intensify their calls
for abolition. Nevertheless, there is more to the death penalty than executions
themselves. In times of COVID-19, the operation of a justice system may make
it difficult or near impossible to carry out executions, but it does not neces-
sarily stop the imposition of the death penalty. Notably, at least ten countries
sentenced a minimum of 213 people to death for drug offences in 2020 - a
16.3% increase from the 183 confirmed in 2019.12 This upward trend was parti-
cularly significant in some countries, such as Indonesia, where 77 people were
sentenced to death for drug trafficking in 2020 (a 79% increase from 2019).
Conversely, substantial numbers of death sentences contribute to the growing
number of people on death row, where many have spent more than a decade.
This unwavering reliance on the death penalty – even in times of exceptional
challenges – is as troubling as the executions themselves.
Minimum confirmed death sentences for drug offences, 2020
Vietnam Indonesia Malasyia Lao PDR Thailand
79 77 25 13 8
11 “Clemency for Merry Utami: Save Merry from Injustice,” Change.Org (blog), accessed Feb 15, 2021, https://www.
20
change.org/p/joko-widodo-grasi-untuk-merry-utami-selamatkan-merry-dari-ketidakadilan.
12 Based on a HRI dataset on death sentences and executions for drug offences. On file with the authors and available
upon request.It is essential to note that there remains a pervasive and systemic lack
of transparency around the death penalty, which is in violation of clear inter-
national standards.13 The issue of transparency was exacerbated in 2020, when
collecting information about the use of the death penalty for drug offences was
even more challenging than in previous years. This is likely due to COVID-19 do-
minating the news, restrictions imposed upon movement, and the shrinking of
civil society space; all of which negatively impacted independent monitoring of
the death penalty. At the same time, several UN human rights processes, such
as country reviews by Treaty Bodies and country visits by Special Procedures,
came to a halt or were delayed, resulting in an even lower number of available
resources to track the application of the death penalty. This signals a pressing
need for monitoring processes to resume, to ensure that violations and trends
are documented and addressed. Well-integrated human rights monitoring and
documentation should become an essential component to prevent further and
future violations of human rights.
Finally, 2020 also witnessed the regression of some countries, with
plans to apply harsher punishment to drug offences. For example, the Philippi-
nes President Rodrigo Duterte has continued pushing to reintroduce the death
penalty as part of his ‘war on drugs’. At the time of writing, a bill that would
re-impose the death penalty has been adopted in the lower house of Congress,
and is due to be discussed in the Senate.
- - -
+ + +
Singapore Sri Lanka China Iran Saudi
6 5 ? ? Arabia
?
21
13 Among others: Human Rights Commission, “Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions. Report of the Special
Rapporteur, Philip Alston: Transparency and the Imposition of the Death Penalty,” Mar 24, 2006, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/53/
Add.3.02. IMPACT OF COVID-19
ON THE RIGHT TO A
FAIR TRIAL
The COVID-19 pandemic and related emergency measures disrupted
judicial processes in countries around the world, including those related to ca-
pital cases, in ways that risk exposing defendants to additional vulnerabilities
and violations of their fair trial rights.
The Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (Siracusa Prin-
ciples) state that “public health may be invoked as a ground for limiting certain
rights”14 to allow countries to take necessary measures to respond to public
health emergencies. However, the Siracusa Principles also specify that any li-
mitations to human rights recognised by the Covenant must meet certain re-
quirements of necessity, where no less intrusive and restrictive means are avai-
lable to reach the same objective.15
Article 10 of The Siracusa Principles a. is based on one of the grounds
on the Limitation and Derogation justifying limitations recognized
Provisions in the International by the relevant article of the
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Covenant;
b. responds to a pressing public
(10) Whenever a limitation is required or social need;
in the terms of the Covenant to be c. pursues a legitimate aim; and
“necessary,” this term implies that d. is proportionate to that aim.
the limitation:
Any assessment as to the necessity of
a limitation shall be made on objective
considerations.
22
14 “Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation of Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights” (Commission on Human Rights, Sept 28, 1984), https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/E/CN.4/1985/4. Para. 25.
15 Ibid., Paras. 10 – 11.In a legitimate state of emergency, certain fair trial rights “may be sub-
ject to legitimate limitations.”16 However, there are particular provisions under
the right to a fair trial that are fundamental to human dignity and which are
non-derogable even under a state of emergency, including but not limited to17:
○ The right to have adequate time and facilities to prepare
the defence, including the right to communicate
confidentially with a lawyer;
○ The right of the defendant to be present at trial;
○ The right to obtain the attendance and examination of
defence witnesses; and
○ The right to a fair and public hearing by a competent,
independent and impartial tribunal.
National responses to the COVID-19 emergency have led to worrying
changes in the criminal justice system. Lawyers in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia
reported that their access to detained clients has been restricted, which has
prevented them from discussing and developing effective defence strategies.18
In India, at first, only lawyers were able to be present in-person during court
proceedings, but all hearings are now held virtually.19 As denounced by local
lawyers, in drug-related cases virtual hearings have further compromised the
court’s ability to show the link between the drug seized, the sample of drug
sent for testing, and the accused persons.20 In Indonesia, the Supreme Court
announced in March 2020 that hearings for criminal matters could be carried
out through teleconference.21 Similarly in China, trials have also moved online
as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.22 These changes exacerbate the already
weak protection of the right to a fair trial in capital drug cases, explored in-dep-
th in HRI’s Global Overview 2019.
16 Ibid., Para. 70.
17 Ibid., Para. 70(g)
18 Personal Communication with Justice Project Pakistan, 2020.
19 Dhananjay Mahapatra, “Virtual Courts to Hear Urgent Cases during Lockdown,” The Times of India, Apr 5, 2020, http://
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/74988557.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_
campaign=cppst
20 Tandon, T., Personal Communication, 2021.
21 “Taking Lives During Pandemic - 2020 Indonesian Death Penalty Report” (Jakarta: Institute for Criminal Justice Reform
23
(ICJR), Oct 2020), https://icjr.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Death-Penalty-Report-ICJR-2020.pdf. Pag. 16.
22 Anonymous, Personal Communication, 2021; “China Focus: China Moves Courts Online amid Coronavirus Epidemic,”
Xinhua, Feb 18, 2020, http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-02/18/c_138795315.htm.RIGHT TO ADEQUATE TIME AND FACILITIES TO
PREPARE A DEFENCE
The right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence is “an im-
portant element of the guarantee of a fair trial and an application of the princi-
ple of equality of arms.”23 There is no fixed determination of what constitutes
‘adequate time’, as it depends on the circumstances of the case, but such time
should allow the defendant to sufficiently prepare a defence. In one case in
Indonesia, Bengkalis District Court sentenced two men to death for trafficking
25 kilograms of amphetamine from prison.24 The prosecutor read his demand
on 31 August 2020, followed by a verdict from the judges on the same day.25
The significantly short period between the prosecutor’s demand and the ver-
dict points to a lack of adequate time to prepare a defence, which contravenes
procedure.
Access to legal assistance and communication with one’s lawyer are es-
sential to preparing a defence. The Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the
Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty state that, in countries which have not
abolished the death penalty, such punishment can only be “rendered by a com-
petent court after a legal process which gives all possible safeguards to ensure
a fair trial, … including the right of anyone suspected of or charged with a crime
for which capital punishment may be imposed to adequate legal assistance at
all stages of the proceedings.”26 A lawyer’s presence is essential to help the
defendant navigate the criminal justice system, understand the nature of the
crime, and present an effective defence in court. At a later stage of criminal
justice proceedings, a lawyer’s presence is also important to ensure one’s right
to appeal and/or to apply for pardon or commutation of death sentences.
Lawyers must be able to give advice and to represent the defendant pro-
fessionally without restrictions, pressure or undue interference from other par-
ties, from the earliest stage of the proceedings.27 To provide effective assistan-
ce, lawyers must be able to meet with the defendant in private and in conditions
that fully respect the confidentiality of their communications.28
23 “General Comment No. 32 - Article 14: Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to a Fair Trial” (Human Rights
Committee, Aug 23, 2007), CCPR/C/GC/32, para. 32.
24 “Tok! Duo Bandar Sabu Dari Bengkalis Kembali Dihukum Mati,” DetikNews, Sept 2, 2020, https://news.detik.com/
berita/d-5156871/tok-duo-bandar-sabu-dari-bengkalis-kembali-dihukum-mati.
25 “Taking Lives During Pandemic - 2020 Indonesian Death Penalty Report.” pag, 20 . See also: “Gunung Sugih State
Court Case Search Information System,” accessed Feb 16, 2021, http://sipp.pn-gunungsugih.go.id/list_perkara.
26 United Nations Economic and Social Council, “Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the
24
Death Penalty,” May 25, 1984, para. 5.
27 “General Comment No. 32 - Article 14: Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to a Fair Trial.” Para. 34.
28 Ibid.Therefore, even in the pandemic era, lawyers should be able to meet and
confidentially communicate with their clients. Lawyers in China are still able to
meet their clients in prisons or other detention facilities, but they now need to
present additional health documents. While this is necessary to avoid the risk
of COVID-19 transmission, this additional requirement may be burdensome for
lawyers. A Beijing-based lawyer reported that:
[In the past], lawyers only needed to present a letter of intro-
duction, a letter of authorization and practicing license to see
their clients. Now, in addition to these three documents, they
must present a proof of health, a health declaration, travel re-
cords of 14 days or two months, a QR code on health status, a
nucleic acid test report.29
In a death penalty case, when a lawyer’s visits to their clients are restric-
ted - combined with excessive reliance on telephones or other, less effective
forms of communication (such as low quality online connections) and inade-
quate time to prepare a defence - the likelihood of mounting a weak or poorly
prepared defence inevitably increases the risk of receiving a death sentence.
The risk increases further where the defendant is a foreign national who does
not speak the language used in the hearing, and would consequently need
more time for interpretation to communicate meaningfully with their lawyers
and participate in a trial.
With detention facilities limiting visits to prevent the spread of COVID-19,
lawyers have faced many barriers to meeting with their clients. Lawyers at Jus-
tice Project Pakistan indicated that during COVID-19:
One of the main challenges presented was through the initial
suspension of interviews of prisoners with their family mem-
bers and legal counsel and lack of alternative means of au-
dio-visual communications, which meant a lack of access for
prisoners to their legal representatives.30
Lawyers in Saudi Arabia and Sri Lanka faced similar obstacles.31
25
29 Anonymous, Personal Communication, 2021.
30 Personal Communication with Justice Project Pakistan, 2020
31 Anonymous, Personal Communication, 2021. Hewamanna, P., Personal Communication, 2020.In the early stages of the pandemic, many countries limited or suspen-
ded prison visits to prevent the spread of COVID-19, often replacing them with
phone calls or other forms of communication. Where phone calls or telecom-
munication are time-bound, or not free of charge, lawyer-defendant commu-
nication has been negatively impacted.32 In addition, some detention centres
simply do not have the appropriate services, software or hardware, such as re-
liable computers and good internet connections. Consequently, in some cases
communications were carried out via phone in the detention centre, or even
by prison officers’ mobile phones - which compromised the confidentiality of
the lawyer-defendant communications – as they could not speak freely or dis-
cuss the defence strategy due to fears that the prison officer might share it with
other parties. These circumstances may seriously impact the preparation of
defence as well as the quality of the defence in any given case. Lawyers at LBH
Masyarakat, Indonesia, Muhammad Afif and Yosua Octavian, reported:
Some prison officers are kind enough to facilitate a meeting
with our client through a video call. But it usually involves
using the prison officer’s phone, so they also stay in the room,
and we can’t have a confidential discussion with our clients.
We also could not clarify the facts and explore potential miti-
gating factors.33
Furthermore, the practice of using prison officers’ mobile phones essen-
tially relies on the good faith and discretion of individual officers, rather than on
instituted policies and practices. As such, it has a significant potential of resul-
ting in discrimination.
32 “Safeguarding the Right to a Fair Trial During the Coronavirus Pandemic: Remote Criminal Justice Proceedings”
(London: Fair Trials, 2020), https://www.fairtrials.org/sites/default/files/Safeguarding%20the%20right%20to%20
a%20fair%20trial%20during%20the%20coronavirus%20pandemic%20remote%20criminal%20justice%20
26
proceedings.pdf.
33 Afif, M. and Octavian, Y., Personal Communication with LBHM, 2021.RIGHT TO FAIR AND PUBLIC HEARING BY A
COMPETENT, INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL
Article 14 of the ICCPR recognizes the right to a fair and public hearing
by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.34 This
right entails, among other things, public access to a hearing unless for legiti-
mate reasons where “courts have the power to exclude all or part of the public
for reasons of moral, public order (ordre public) or national security”;35 while
fairness entails, among other things, the right to be tried without undue delay.
To deal with COVID-19-related risks, courts have suspended or limited
in-person hearings, sometimes replacing them with virtual hearings held throu-
gh online platforms. According to local lawyers, courts in India and Sri Lanka
only conducted in-person hearings for urgent cases throughout (or for part of)
2020, as part of lockdown policy.36 Cases classified as non-urgent were heard
virtually or had to wait for the courts to resume in-person hearings. In Malaysia,
courts adjourned criminal trials, while the defendants remained in prison on
remand.37 Postponement of a hearing can be a serious problem, especially for
offences punishable by death, as Fahri Azzat, a Malaysian lawyer working on
death penalty cases, explains:
“The longer they [the defendants] remain in remand (because courts
rarely grant bail for a death penalty offence), the longer they are pre-
judiced, i.e. their memory becomes less accurate.”38
This can have a detrimental impact on their testimony, and on their cre-
dibility in front of the judges.
In Indonesia and Singapore, courts have carried out dozens of criminal
proceedings, and even sentenced people to death for drug offences, through
virtual platforms.39 With courts limiting in-person hearings, virtual hearings be-
came the only option to avoid undue delays. However, remote hearings should
be held in such a way to ensure that the defendant is able to effectively exercise
their right to a fair trial. The use of virtual platforms to conduct criminal pro-
ceedings, especially those which result in a death sentence, can expose the
defendant to significant violations of their fair trial rights and impinge on the
quality of the defence.40
34 “General Comment No. 34 - Article 19: Freedoms of Opinion and Expression” (Human Rights Committee, Sept 12, 2011),
UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 15.
35 “General Comment No. 32 - Article 14: Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to a Fair Trial.” Para. 29.
36 Tandon, T., Personal Communication with Lawyers Collective, 2020. Hewamanna, P., Personal Communication, 2020.
37 Azzat, F., Personal Communication, 2020.
27
38 Ibid.
39 Afif, M. and Octavian, Y., Personal Communication with LBHM, 2021., Ravi, M., Personal Communication, 2020.
40 “Safeguarding the Right to a Fair Trial During the Coronavirus Pandemic: Remote Criminal Justice Proceedings”.Firstly, defendants have the right to be present at trial,41 as absence from
the courtroom may compromise their effective participation in the hearing.42
Hence, the decision to conduct hearings virtually should be based on (a) con-
sent from all parties,43 and (b) an individualised assessment of the circum-
stances (including the length and impact of any delays on the defendants’
rights, the complexity of the case, and the presence of witnesses and ex-
perts).44 According to the International Commission of Jurists, any decision to
impose a videoconference without consent may be “permissible if it is based in
law, non-discriminatory, time-limited and demonstrably necessary and propor-
tionate in the local circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and the specific
characteristics of the individual case.”45
Instead of respecting the defendant’s right to be present at trial, and en-
couraging thorough individual assessments on the specific characteristics of
each case, in March 2020 the Indonesian Supreme Court made the blanket
decision to conduct all criminal hearings virtually,46 while further technical
arrangements on the implementation of such decision were made jointly by the
Supreme Court, the Attorney General’s Office, and the Correctional Facilities
Directorate-General.47 Indonesian sources indicate that in practice, the Court
does not ask for the defendant’s consent to conduct the trial virtually.48
Secondly, Article 14 of the ICCPR guarantees one’s right to be tried in a
public manner, unless for legitimate reasons where “courts have the power to
exclude all or part of the public for reasons of moral, public order (ordre public)
or national security.”49 The International Commission of Jurists’ interpretation
is that public health cannot be used to exclude the public from a hearing.50
Practically, in Indonesia, the court administrator only shares the link to the virtual
hearing platform with the judges, the prosecutors, the lawyers, and the officers of
the prison where the defendant is detained; the court rarely publishes the link on
their website, so the general public, including the defendant’s family, the victim’s
family, and other relevant parties, cannot gain access to the hearing.51
41 “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” Pub. L. No. Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171 (1966), art. 14.3(d).
42 “Safeguarding the Right to a Fair Trial During the Coronavirus Pandemic: Remote Criminal Justice Proceedings,” pag. 4
43 “Videoconferencing, Courts and COVID-19. Recommendations Based on International Standards” (Geneva:
International Commission of Jurists , Nov 2020), https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Universal-
videoconferencing-courts-and-covid-Advocacy-2020-ENG.pdf.
44 “Safeguarding the Right to a Fair Trial During the Coronavirus Pandemic: Remote Criminal Justice Proceedings.”
45 “Videoconferencing, Courts and COVID-19. Recommendations Based on International Standards,” pag. 5.
46 “Taking Lives During Pandemic - 2020 Indonesian Death Penalty Report,” pag. 16.
47 Perjanjian Kerja Sama (MoU) Nomor: 402/DJU/HM.01.1/4/2020; Nomor: KEP-17/E/Ejp/04/2020; Nomor: PAS-08.
HH.05.05 Tahun 2020 tentang Pelaksanaan Persidangan Melalui Teleconference.
48 Afif, M. and Octavian, Y., Personal Communication with LBHM, 2021.
28
49 “General Comment No. 32 - Article 14: Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to a Fair Trial,” para. 29.
50 “Videoconferencing, Courts and COVID-19. Recommendations Based on International Standards,” pag. 7.
51 Afif, M. and Octavian, Y., Personal Communication with LBHM, 2021.Furthermore, in some sensitive cases, such as death penalty and/or drug
cases, neither lawyers nor any other parties can record the process without
approval from the judges.52 Lawyers Muhammad Afif and Yosua Octavian repor-
ted: “We cannot record the process, nor take screenshots or photos unless we
get the judges’ permission. Virtual hearings mean the whole process is not open
for the public because the link is distributed limitedly.”
In Indonesia, three Malaysian In Singapore, Punithan Genasan
nationals - Kumar Atchababoo, was sentenced to death by hanging
Rajandran Ramasamy, and Sanggat via a sentencing hearing held
Ramasamy - were sentenced to death on the Zoom platform. Genasan
during a virtual hearing by Batam attended from jail, with his lawyer
District Court. They were charged in a different location. According to
with trafficking 28.6 kilograms of the court documents, Genasan, who
amphetamines. Despite them being was convicted for ‘masterminding’
foreign nationals, the court judgment the trafficking of 28.5 grams of
does not make any reference to the diamorphine (the medical name
presence of interpreters during the of heroin), consistently denied any
hearing, and, following the judgment, involvement in the drug transaction.
their counsel complained that he
could not communicate with the
defendants to discuss whether to
appeal the sentence.
Conversely, online platforms are often not secure and confidential. Sin-
gaporean human rights lawyer, M. Ravi, expressed his concern about the lack of
security and confidentiality when using Zoom for a virtual hearing, saying: “I be-
lieve the better way was to have (the hearing) in open court. There is also a Zoom
administrator which also puts confidential data at risk”.53 Similarly, lawyers from
the Indonesian organisation LBH Masyarakat shared concerns that their clients
could not confer confidentially with them in a virtual courtroom setting.54
Finally, from a practical perspective, virtual hearings rely heavily on the
internet connection available in the city or the country. Countries like India,
Indonesia, Myanmar, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are among the countries with
lower-ranked internet speeds.55 Consequently, there are moments where poor
internet connection disrupts the proceedings, raising questions of the ability of
courts to examine witnesses and the defendant effectively.56
52 Ibid.
53 Ravi, M., Personal Communication, 2020.
54 Afif, M. and Octavian, Y., Personal Communication with LBHM, 2021.
55 “Internet Speeds by Country 2021,” World Population Review, accessed Feb 15, 2021, https://worldpopulationreview.com/
country-rankings/internet-speeds-by-country.
29
56 Afif, M. and Octavian, Y., Personal Communication with LBHM, 2021. Also: Yash Agarwal, “Challenges in Setting up Virtual
and Online Courts in India,” The Leaflet, Oct 23, 2020, https://www.theleaflet.in/challenges-in-setting-up-virtual-and-
online-courts-in-india/#.03. CONCLUSION
Despite presenting a unique opportunity – due to the alignment of a glo-
bal pandemic, forceful civil society activism, and political developments – 2020
saw ongoing violations related to the application of the death penalty for drug
offences. At least 30 people were executed for drug offences in three countries
(while dozens more are feared to have lost their lives in China and Vietnam),
and an estimated 3,000 people are currently on death row for drug offences
worldwide.
A significant number of death sentences were handed down for drug cri-
mes in 2020, despite the unique challenges to safeguarding the right to a fair
trial of people facing the death penalty; this suggests that, while countries are
competing to protect their citizens’ lives from a deadly virus, they are less ready
to move away from state-sanctioned killing as a pu nishment. Ad ministering
the death penalty requires a complicated, complex and (to a degree) expensi-
ve machinery, whose already problematic functioning was further challenged
by the pandemic. The ongoing reliance on capital punishment, despite such
challenges, indicates that retentionist countries may be missing an important
opportunity to limit the use of this instrument, or at least to critically assess its
necessity in these new circumstances.
Furthermore, a decrease in the number of executions is not in itself a
solution to the problem; neither should it be treated as a primary goal in advoca-
ting against the death penalty for drug offences. Moving forward, it is vital that ad-
vocacy against the death penalty, together with drug policy reform, remains on
the agenda. Each execution is an egregious human rights violation, preceded
by a series of flagrant violations that seem to be a normalcy in many retentionist
countries. The fight against the death penalty, therefore, is not just about the
abolition of an archaic and ineffective punishment from any criminal justice
system; rather, it is also fundamentally about strengthening that very justice
system and ensuring that – inter alia – there are mechanisms in place to prevent
arbitrary arrest and detention, eliminate police brutality, ensure that testimonies
or information derived from unlawful practices are deemed inadmissible, and
safeguard the right to a fair trial. Abolitionists and drug policy reformers must
continue to align their work to address these mounting challenges.
3031
The death penalty for
drug offences: global
overview 2020
COUNTRY-BY-COUNTRY CATEGORIES
ANALYSIS
This section of the Global Overview HRI has identified 35 countries
provides a state-by-state mapping and territories that retain the death
of those countries that have capital penalty for drug offences in law. Only
drug laws, and an analysis of how a small number of these countries
these laws are enforced, applied, or carry out executions for drug
changed in practice. The information offences regularly. In fact, six of these
presented here updates and builds states are classified by Amnesty
upon the data presented in previous International as abolitionist in
editions of the Global Overview. practice.57 This means that they have
not carried out executions for any
crime in the past ten years (although
in some cases death sentences are
still pronounced), and “are believed to
have a policy or established practice
of not carrying out executions”.58
Other countries have neither
sentenced to death nor executed
anyone for a drug offence, despite
having dedicated laws in place.
To demonstrate the differences
between law and practice among
states with the death penalty for drug
offences, HRI categorises countries
into high application, low application,
or symbolic application states.
32
57. Brunei Darussalam, Lao PDR, Mauritania, Myanmar, South Korea and Sri Lanka. See “Death Sentences and
Executions in 2019” (London: Amnesty International, 2020), https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/
act50/1847/2020/en/.
58. Ibid., pag. 55.With an eye to further clarifying the classification criteria, in the Global
Overview 2020, we have reviewed the definitions of these categories. The aim
is to better reflect our belief that a well-rounded analysis of the death penalty
for drug offences, and of states’ reliance on this measure, should consider not
only executions but also death sentences. We added a note in the dedicated
paragraphs of the countries that have been reclassified accordingly.
It is also worth noting that, due to the significant decrease in confirmed
executions in 2020, the term ‘application’ may sound less fitting than previous-
ly. As it remains unclear whether these figures indicate the beginning of a lon-
ger trend, or are the reflection of an exceptional year, the decision was taken
not to change the categories, at least for this Global Overview.
High Application States are those in which executions of
individuals convicted of drug offences were carried out, and/
or at least ten drug-related death sentences per year were
imposed in the past five years.
Low Application States are those where, although no
executions for drug offences were carried out in the past five
years, death sentences for drug offences were imposed on
nine or fewer individuals in the same period.
Symbolic Application States are those that have the death
penalty for drug offences within their legislation but have not
carried out executions or sentenced individuals to death for
drug crimes in the past five years. Qatar, Taiwan and the USA
are symbolic application countries confirmed to have carried
out executions in 2020, but not for drug offences.
A fourth category, insufficient data, denotes instances where
there is simply not enough information to classify the country
accurately.
33You can also read
